Rhetorical Analysis Of Resistance To Civil Disobedience

498 Words2 Pages
In his essay “Resistance to Civil Disobedience,” Henry David Thoreau gives his insight on what he suggests is a better/fair government. He believes the government to be artificial and driven by the powerful. Thoreau explains how this can be fixed by rebelling against the government and demanding change; the very definition of civil disobedience itself. Being against the Mexican-American war and slavery, he saw them as acts of aggression and arrogance. Thoreau not only influenced people of his time, but also the people after him all the way to present day. His values hold truth and still can be used to protest against the troubles of today. Thoreau started a movement of non-violent protests and speaking up about the situations and troubles in the world around us.…show more content…
He does not want to get rid of the government, he wants it to be better. Government exists to make decisions for the people, but often times it is taken advantage of. An example of this would be the Mexican-American war, which was conducted by a small group of wealthy men against the majority will of the people. The government allows it to be manipulated by a few men who do what they please rather than do what the majority wants, only to profit economically. Because of this Thoreau views the government as a barrier to the people which it is supposed to represent. Money is what binds men to institutions and government that are responsible for unlawful practices, such as the enslavement of Africans and the Mexican-American war. Thoreau saw this relationship between money and power and did not think it was fair. He believed that the poor man had the right to resist because the government does the least when it comes to their safety and

    More about Rhetorical Analysis Of Resistance To Civil Disobedience

      Open Document